Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven7
No problem. I would like to say though, regarding body shapes, that I asked a GM designer who has worked for everything from Opel to Cadillac, "why don't automakers use aerodynamic rear-ends on their cars?" His answer was variety. He said Cadillac didn't want to build a Prius. Sounds like an excuse to me! They made streamlining cool in the 30's and I see no reason they couldn't do the same today, but make it work.
But I digress. I wish the FC Sport styling would make it into production but almost all hope is gone. Their cars just look Korean now.
|
GM is given credit for the TRALAND (Today's design has already been trashed and land filled) design philosophy,spearheading design obsolescence.
DuPont/General Motors structured for slow incremental changes and by the late 1920s was already concerned about 'look-alike' cars.
I believe it was 1928 when thy took a risk with their Buick Division,launching a curved-body which would earn the sobriquet 'Pregnant Buick' by consumers.
It bombed in the marketplace and GM first attempted a cosmetic disguise, while it moved to get it out of production.
The 1934 Chrysler Airflow bombed,when rushed,unready, into mass production
and is still considered a setback to aero design.
The Lincoln Zephyr had a better Cd than Airflow,but Ford Motor refused to even use the word 'Streamline' in their promotional material.It had been so sullied by the Airflow experience.
In 1963,Walter Korff was at the annual SAE Congress promoting dramatic streamlining.H.Schmude of GM's Styling Div. said (paraphrasing)," if cars were to be designed 100% streamlined, would they not all look alike,and the stylist have nothing to do?"
Sub-mariners don't argue the 'styling' of their nuclear Akula or Virginia-class submarine.
Airline passengers don't argue the 'styling' of their M-D,Boeing,or Airbus fuselage.
Most guys don't argue female anatomy.
But boy are we attached to auto styling! I think they'll milk it for all its got as long as they can.
And that's all the automakers.